It takes a special brand of self-righteous arrogance to blame other people for your own failures. The editors of the Los Angeles Times have this sort of arrogance in bountiful supply. This is how they can keep a straight face as they blame the residents of Los Angeles for ignoring the crime problem in South L.A. — while ignoring their own newspaper’s role in creating this atmopshere of indifference.

The latest example comes this morning, in a self-righteous editorial about the serial murderer of 10 women along Figueroa Street. After justified praise for the LAPD detective who solved the murders, and a denunciation of another man’s wrongful conviction, we are treated to this lecture about our attitude towards crime in South L.A.:

The rest of the city is left to ponder another attitude: indifference. Los Angeles’ worst serial killer apparently stalked South L.A. for years without the rest of the city noticing enough to even give him a name. We didn’t talk about an unidentified Figueroa Street Strangler as we did a Freeway Killer, Night Stalker or Hillside Strangler.

And just whose fault is that, L.A. Times editors?

When did the L.A. Times ever run a major story on the “Figueroa Street Strangler”? I’ll tell you when: never. What kind of coverage did the L.A. Times give to the murders of these women? I’ll tell you: none. I have searched the Times for any past mention of the names of any of these women, and I can’t find even an obituary on any of them, much less an in-depth article about numerous prostitutes being murdered on Figueroa Street.

As much as we citizens of Los Angeles might resent it, the L.A. Times has a monopoly on major print journalism in the city. So if the citizens of Los Angeles were unaware of the “Figueroa Street Strangler,” the L.A. Times editors have only themselves to blame.

Unfortunately, the editors always look around for someone else to blame when it comes to indifference to crime in South L.A. I discussed this in a post last year titled “The Mote in Your Eye.” My post criticized an article in the Times which purported to raise a “moral issue” about the LAPD’s extensive use of resources to solve the murder of an innocent 13-year old named Joey Swift. The story asked the question why the Los Angeles Police Department did not devote comparable resources solving the murders of gang members. The focus of the story was entirely on the Los Angeles Police Department.

What was interesting was that an LAPD detective gave a clear answer to the question (on the back pages, where nobody but me read it). The answer: the media doesn’t care about such murders. As an LAPD detective told the reporter: “We know that if we were to tell you a [murder victim] is a well-known gang member, you would not cover it.”

I asked: “So what’s the real story? The use of resources by LAPD — or by the Times?”

I am still asking that same question.

Perhaps the most obvious indicator of the paper’s indifference to South L.A. crime is its shilling for Proposition 66. If the crimes committed by the third-strikers in prison had all been perpetrated against white, middle-class victims, it is hard to believe that the criminals’ full violent histories would be so well hidden from the public’s view — and it would consequently be much harder for the paper to support releasing these violent offenders. But when up to 26,000 convicts hit the street next year, they will, for the most part, go back to doing what they do best: victimizing people in poor, minority communities. And you won’t hear about it. So you — and the L.A. Times editors — will figure that your support for Proposition 66 didn’t really harm public safety.

Meanwhile, people like me will start keeping count of the number of people victimized by those released. And in 2, 3, or 5 years, we’ll come back to you with those numbers. Maybe you’ll be convinced then. But there will be a lot of blood on your hands.

You just won’t know it’s there — because media organizations like the L.A. Times aren’t going to tell you about it. And then they are going to run self-righteous editorials like today’s, blaming you for your indifference.